Супротивло Iстория Музыка и сценарий Игорь Латышко Редактор субтитров А.Семкин Корректор А.Кулакова Корректор А.Кулакова Корректор А.Кулакова Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирск Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Новосибирский Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski Novosibirski We're concerned. We're complaining. Not about the staff. Amelia's been great. But about the way the guidelines are being applied. I've been an environmental or I was an environmental attorney for many years, and I always thought, well, if you're trying to figure out what a guideline or a regulation or whatever says, you look at the reason for it. And here I've looked at the design principle. And it says — it seems to me that the design principle is what the aesthetic outcome should be. And then the guidelines come along afterwards with the standards, the do's and don'ts on how you achieve those aims. It's, like, pretty close. I mean, the guidelines shouldn't be more restrictive than the — than authorized by the design principle. So you look here at the design principle. The solar panel should be located as unobtrusively as possible. That's all there is about solar panels in the design principle. And there's no definition in the glossary of this — for these guidelines. But you look at Merriam-Webster, and unobstruct — unobtrusive means not blatant or arresting or aggressive. And these panels are not any of those things. We worked with Solar Energy Solutions to make sure the panels are not obtrusive. We've got — they're on the side of the building. There will be black panels on black roof. There are three floors above the street or the sidewalk. They're really not blatant. And there's no reasonable — no other place to install the seven panels. So in my book, these panels are as unobtrusive as possible, and they confort with the design principle. But then you have to look at the guidelines themselves. And the staff has determined the proposal to install the seven contested panels does not meet the guidelines because, one, the panels are part of the primary elevation, and, two, they are easily visible from the street. And there's one other element that I'll discuss in a minute. But just parsing these things, if — there's no definition of primary elevation in the — in the glossary of the Greggs, but we can figure that out. You know, we — basically, it means the front facade of the house. And — but the guideline doesn't say that the panels shall not be part of the primary elevation. It says they shall not be mounted on the primary elevation. And these aren't mounted on the primary elevation. They're on the side roof. So it seems to me that this provision of the guidelines doesn't bar panels on the side roof. Now, it says the other reason was that the panels are easily visible from the street, and I really question that. They're easily visible if you're looking straight up and, you know, on your tiptoes to see them from certain angles. But if I were trying to sell my house, I would not put the for sale sign up on this — this roof. They're not particularly visible in my book. But more importantly, that's nowhere in the guidelines. There's nothing in the guidelines that says they shall not be easily visible. So that's just kind of a criterion picked out of thin air. Now, granted, this is where I, you know, I have some difficulty, but I got the guidelines say the panels should be located at the rear of the principal building. But that's not possible here. We just discussed. There's no way that — I mean, the sun does not shine on my old Kentucky home in the backyard or on the back of the house. So — and then we go back, you know, recall the design principle that it shall be as unobtrusive as possible, and this isn't as unobtrusive as possible because the rear location just really isn't possible for this kind of project. But the bottom line is that this is a worthy project. Bill and I have supported historic preservation, but we're passionate about the environment. I've been an environmental attorney for years, and I'm on the board of the Kentucky Natural Lands Trust, and I firmly believe that climate change is a major problem. This isn't like satellite dishes. It's not like the shape of a column on the front porch. It's — these are — I mean, climate scientists treat this as, you know, that it's a threat — the threat of our lives. All the Democratic candidates are dealing with climate change as though it's an existential threat to the nation and the world. I'm preaching. But — and, you know, we know our little project's not going to save the world, but we'd really like the opportunity to do our part. And so, you know, let's talk policy. If the Democrat gets into the White House, and, you know, we're going to see climate change issue just storming through every hall of government, right down into city halls, and, you know, billions of dollars are going to be spent on it. And I'm hesitant to say this, I guess, because it sounds belittling, and I don't mean it that way, but I just don't think historic preservation has the political clout to stand up against the push for climate change. And I firmly believe that denying solar options to every house that happens to be on the wrong side of the street is just — will not be politically acceptable, and, frankly, it might even be a violation of equal protection. I need for you to wrap it up, Ms. Kelley. Okay, sure. So, basically, I'm asking you to get on the right side of history and give us a waiver or whatever it takes, and also to change the guidelines because — to make solar power more possible. So, just summing up, the panels will not be mounted on the primary elevation, visibility from the street is not a guideline standard, a relocation is not technologically possible, and the panels will be as unobtrusive as possible. And I don't really think it's fair to deny solar panel use on every house under your jurisdiction that has an odd street number. All right. Does anyone else want to address the points being made by Ms. Keller? Go ahead. So, your passion is appreciated. This is a discussion that our board has been having for the past year. We, as a board, do not have the authority to make any changes to the guidelines. But with that being — there is a process, and it's in conversation. We are in the 21st century. We do realize that. We all clearly want to protect historic neighborhoods, the fabric of it, but we also want — climate change is a much bigger issue than just historic structures. We all understand that also. So — and we have — so our policies, the pieces that are most rigid, we simply have to — there is no such thing as kind of a waiver. Once there's a waiver, there's no longer a policy. But in the instance of what you're doing, I would suggest that the roof is not facing the street. And my reason for asking, Alex, if those panels could be shifted off that front edge, it does seem like to me that it shouldn't impact the performance of the panels, that it's really about how much space is there. And I could give an artificial number of two feet, and that might be useless because they can only go back 18 inches. So I'd be much more interested in how they could be pulled off that front edge. But if there's willingness to look at at least that, to be able to kind of respect that front street edge of the roof, then — I'm not sure what criterion you're asking us to apply. Well, I think — I mean, pull it off is the — I don't know how much — well, obviously — There is not a — there is not a guideline that gives what that distance is. What I'm trying to do is to balance within the policies that it's not to be on the primary façade facing the street, which for me is the primary façade. And I'm trying to pull it back off of that front edge, which I do consider the front — the main elevation, and still consider, then, this a side yard. And I'm just asking if that would be an acceptable approach for you. Conceptually, yes. I mean, I just don't know what the outcome would be and how much would be satisfactory. Excuse me. Coming up, Bill. Mrs. Rory. And I will withdraw on that comment. So, I mean, from the design perspective, I mean, we can shift so — basically up to where that chimney is. And, I mean, that's going to leave easily about, you know, two and a half, three feet. I mean, if you need an actual dimension on that. But, I mean, it's set pretty far back from the edge. That may push it out of the line of vision from the street is the point that we're trying to get at. I mean, that's almost the width of a panel, basically. I'm comfortable with it. If you think you can rescue it, then, you know. Yeah, I just think if we move the panels kind of northwest there to where that bottom row panel is hugging the chimney. Mm-hmm. Okay. Does the staff have a comment about that suggestion? I know you love the design on the fly. This is the board's decision, so. Recognizing that, but is the staff going to have too much heartburn if that's the consensus that we reach, that we push it back towards the chimney? It should be less visible from the street itself, and that's the point. And I think probably what — probably within the motion we probably should do — Oh, yeah, absolutely. — is make something that says that any of those kind of details come back to staff for us to review once Alex sort of does his calculations and looks at that, and then bring that plan back to us. Okay. Prior to issuance of the COA. Would that involve also further board review? Because we are coming upon time. It would just depend upon whether you can work out. Okay. But if it's the — if the board is giving us a directive to work that out. We're trying. I think what we're trying to do, what Ms. Still is suggesting — I appreciate that. I think what we're trying to do — don't leave yet — is that we're trying to comply with that wiggle room of unobtrusively as possible. And you're right. It's vague. It's, I think, intentionally vague. But to address your other concern, and a very legitimate one, the policy guidelines are formulated by the Historic Preservation Commission. And probably you can get with Betty or Amelia and find out the proper people to contact and to address, but you may want to address some of your concerns to them as well. Because this is not the first time we've been confronted with this issue about the sun not favoring certain houses as nicely as other houses. And it's a concern with the recognition that there's a lot to be gained now through solar panels, that this is going to be a significant benefit, that we do need to address that issue. But we can't do it. It has to be done through the commission. Okay. Well, I appreciate the moral support. All right. But we'll — I guess we'll try to work it out. Okay.  Any other questions or comments from the staff members? Okay. Are we ready for it? Would you like to frame the motion, Ms. Hill? I would be delighted to.  Thank you. Let's have a motion. Any comments from the audience? All right. Then I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, I'm — in regard to case number 21030161-I at 161 Woodland Avenue, I recommend that we approve this COA with the two standard — I'm sorry, with the three items that the staff notes as conditions, the two standard ones, plus number two, which says any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. With the revising of number one, that the solar panels on the front gable be moved back toward the chimney to remove it off that front edge of the primary elevation. Okay. And that the owner will work with the staff as their consultant has identified how far that brings that back off the edge without a need for it coming back to the full board for approval. If I may modify that condition, that the proposal be presented to the staff for its review and approval. If need be, they can return the matter to us. In other words, I'm not giving staff absolute veto over this condition. Okay. Accepted. All right. I think they can figure that out. Do I have a second? I second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes as conditioned. All right. Thank you very much. It's called a compromise, hopefully. All right. Turning now to 200 West High Street. This is case number 309-300-200-S. The scope of work is demolish stone garden wall, relocate playground, construct retaining wall, and fencing install landscape material. Applicant here. Good evening. My name is Allison Cummings. I'm attending on behalf of Charlie Barnhart. Also with us. Sorry, your name again, please. Allison Cummings. Thank you. Attending on behalf of Charlie Barnhart. All right. Also with us tonight is Mrs. Barry Prince from First United Methodist Church. All right. Thank you. All right. I think the staff has reviewed your application and is in approval subject to our two standard conditions. I do have a question. Which staff member reviewed this one? I have a question, and it's more just there was a discussion prior to you making your recommendations about the brick piers. Is that something that you were addressing as a concern, but you're not addressing it in the conditions? I think the discussion was about the ‑‑ it's obviously about the fence. And there was a proposal to have brick piers, and they've reduced that now to just having a transparent fence. Okay. And with just on top of the plinth. And the whole idea, the crux of the issue is the fact that, you know, this will be higher than the forefoot that we typically have approved in any kind of front yard type scenario. I just wasn't hearing the rest of the story in this discussion. Right. All right. And I guess it was precursor to that. And I think if you read that, the argument about the fact that, you know, the other buildings are right on the street versus setback. Right. So this is not going to be proud of the building line. It will be in this location. And this particular image gives you the idea that there will be a sidewalk leaning into the playground area, and the fence will be four feet from that sidewalk. Not from this sidewalk, but from this sidewalk. Okay. Any questions? I have just one question. It is a drawing question, and it's on sheet 3.1. There is a detail with a rubber surface, but I'm not finding a rubber surface on the plan. The surface is actually the surface of the playground area itself. It's a synthetic turf. So the whole area of the playground area is that rubber surface. Okay. And I do see that. It's a detail RS on C3.1. It has both the synthetic turf and it shows the rubber surface wearing layer. And I think that's not, doesn't, does it exist? It does. It only exists immediately around play structures. If you refer back to the plan, it is intentionally placed there to serve as a cushion for young children who could potentially fall off of those play structures. It's not the entire play area. I must be missing where it's only wanting to make sure that the drawings fully represent what's happening. I have no problem with either material. I just do not see on the plans that I have. I guess it's really the placement. Can you identify from the plan where it is? We do not have the play structures on a plan currently. We have a rendering of that play area that is being done by the play structure company. Okay. Miracle. So it's just not in the package? It's not in the plans. Yes, ma'am. Excellent. That's why it's missing. Correct. Correct. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Board members? Any comments or questions from the audience? All right. If not, then I think the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the application for COA for case number 09300200-S at 200 West High Street with our two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Further discussion on the motion? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion is approved as conditioned. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We now move on to 402 South Broadway in the Southville Historic District, case number 02510402-B. Is the applicant here? Good evening. I'm Brian Luftman. Good evening. And? James Burris. All right. Of course, we had a rather extensive discussion two weeks ago. The staff has now come up with approvals, and as a last-minute addition, it landed on my desk. Let me read them to you, and then we can have a discussion if need be. The staff recommends approval of the COA with the following conditions. Item one is that, and this is referring to the numbering system that was on a picture or a copy of a photograph. Have you seen this? Yes, sir. Okay. The staff recommends that you may replace windows 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 with aluminum-clad windows. Retain the five fully intact historic windows 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13. Contact the staff to review the condition of these historic windows once removed to determine frame reuse liability. Item two is retain all usable brick mold for reuse. Item three, upon removal of the T111 covering of the openings along Maxwell Street, you shall give the staff an opportunity to review the openings and to determine if the door or window install is required to be modified to match the historic configuration. Number four, provide door or window as required in place of filling historic openings. Number five, provide aluminum-clad door and window manufacturing details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the start, prior to the issuance of the COA. Item six, provide metal roof details and specifications for staff and review approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And seven or eight are what I refer to as standard conditions. Do you need to be heard on any of these or are you in agreement with it? I would like to be heard on number one, please. Number one? All right. Let's have a staff presentation then. And just number one, sir? Yes, sir. Do you agree with everything else? Absolutely. Okay. Let's talk about the windows. Well, I actually have a question for the board. I don't believe Sarah was here for the last meeting. Right. Does that mean I should go through the complete report? I don't think you should go through the complete report. She had the report. I think he was wondering if she needs to hear the whole report for context. But it's only the windows or the issues. Right. Never heard? Well, you know. Only because the report is familiar with it. Right. That's up to you. Sarah, are you okay with just the discussion about the windows? Yes. Okay. I just wanted to give the board the opportunity. All right. And I'm assuming everyone has the photograph that has the numbering system for the windows. Okay. Excuse me. This is 402 South Broadway. This is the Broadway elevation. The windows in question are the double-hung windows on four elevations, I believe. As you remember, the storefront is going to be reconstructed. This is the south side windows. And then the west side, this is the only window that would come into question with this. And staff has recommended approval of removal and replacement of that one. So the proposal is to replace all windows. The proposal calls for the replacement of all windows in the historic structure. The openings at the first floor level along Maxwell Street have been covered with T111 plywood siding and are proposed to be returned to openings with new glass and panels. The balance of the double-hung windows are proposed to be replaced with aluminum-clad windows. The case was postponed from October 9, 2019, board meeting to allow staff to review the double-hung windows to determine originality and condition to determine if the windows could be recommended for replacement. The staff met with Mr. Luftman on site to inspect the windows, and the following is a synopsis of the window condition, which I will not read through that. The guidelines are included for your use. Let me get to where we are here. I'll just skip through to number two where we start on the balance of the double-hung windows. The replacement of the balance of the double-hung windows with aluminum-clad windows requires further discussion. The design principle states windows should be maintained or repaired to match the original design. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, the installation of new wood windows to match the original designs is recommended. Windows of baked aluminum or anodized aluminum-clad may be considered only if the original windows cannot be repaired. Guideline 124A and 124B state, respectively, that windows should be preserved and maintained in their original location, size, and design, and with their original materials and numbers of panes. Original framing of the openings should be retained and maintained and should be repaired rather than be replaced. If the review process determines that replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in kind to match the originals in size, material, and design. The installation of new wood windows to match the original design is recommended. The installation of baked enamel or anodized aluminum-clad windows, not of total aluminum construction, may be considered. If aluminum-clad windows are applied, they should match historic wood windows as closely as possible. In their dimensions, profiles, depth of muttons, and surrounding trim, vinyl or vinyl-clad windows are not allowed. Based on these guidelines and the condition of the windows, staff finds the following. Windows 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13 retain vintage sashes that may be repaired and reused. Windows 6, 7, 17, and 19 are beyond repair and could be replaced. The sashes in Windows 3, 4, 5, and 9, both upper and lower, are modern replacement sashes and may be replaced. Windows 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 are a combination of modern, possibly 20-year-old replacement sashes and vintage sashes that appear to also be earlier replacements that do not fit well to each other and that are ill-fitting within their frames and stops and could be replaced. The next paragraph concerns the storefront, so I won't cover that. And then the recommendations you have covered. For whatever reason, what's in our packet, I don't seem to have the location for 10, 11, and 13. Am I missing that? Where's 10? Well, that's a 10. Okay, I'm sorry. All right, never mind. I've got to get yourographics. You can't read my writing. Architectural scribbles. All right, thank you. Okay, I've got it now. Guidelines are included for your use, and the deadline for board action is November 10, 2019. All right. Are there any questions? Any questions from the board members? What exactly was the process by which you made a determination that the 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13 should be retained? They are all original and retain their original sashes and are not in a severely deteriorated condition. Are they deteriorated? How would you characterize their condition? I would characterize them as pretty good condition, considering sat empty for 15 years, probably very good. Okay. All right. Anything from the board? All right, let's hear from you, sir. Thanks. Board member Tate, we went through a spirited presentation and everything last week, but I'll spare you. The sum of what I was asking for was we were asking for replacement of all the windows, assuming the assumption of the discussion was based on that most of them were historic, most of them had the rolled glass and the original sashes. What we've come to find is that a significant majority of the windows now over the past two weeks are not that, so now we're discussing five windows. I think that strengthens my case in a way that my whole point was to try to have a group of or to have the look of the building all be to make sense, to not have some new, some old, et cetera. Having five historic windows and a bunch of replacement windows I don't think is an optimal aesthetic, in my opinion, and so thus I'm asking for us to be able to comply with the guidelines, in my opinion, where we are doing the replacements that have been suggested. We're allowing the five that are historic, and I believe they're more severely deteriorated than Mr. Dennis, but I appreciate his opinion, and they are indeed historic. I'm asking the Board to follow the guidelines in the fact that they are still, in my opinion, severely deteriorated, but beyond that, in the general aesthetic of the building, because I'm complying with literally everything else that the Historic Preservation Society has asked of me, including keeping the brick molds on the side, which is going to be a massive expense, I'm willing to do that to make sure that the exterior still looks good in exchange for the, I guess, the allowance to go ahead and make all of the windows of the building match, and in that, I'm going to take, we're going to replace them with wood windows. We're going to make a determination on whether they're aluminum clad or not, but we definitely want to use wood windows that match the dimensions and the overall look of the original building, and I think that actually is going to give a superior exterior aesthetic rather than storm windows over five windows that are historic and the rest all being aluminum clad. That's my ask. Okay. Any comments? Michelle? I don't have any. Not really. Is this on your microphone, Sarah? I can't tell if it's on or not. Oh, it's on. Okay. It's on. It's been really hard to find tradesmen that knew what the current polymers were to renovate the sashes, and I don't know, since I'm retired now, I don't know whether it's gotten better or worse, but there are, and were then, good products that you could use to repair the ones that are saleable. Have you done any real? If you're asking the due diligence that we've done on whether we could repair all of the windows in the home? No. The question was, have you studied what products are available? For the replacement windows? No, for the old ones that you're going to update and repair. Well, if we must retain the five windows that are in question, yes, we have done the due diligence on what can be done with those. I was not thrilled with the solution. The solution was they were going to remove all of the sashes. In multiple instances, there's significant damage to them. The ropes, the pulley systems are all cut off. I know that can be repaired, and Mr. Dennis and I looked, and several of them certainly have some wood that has literally come apart. The windows are falling apart. There's wind flowing in through them. I know they need to be repaired and removed, and what will happen is there will be parts of the wood and parts of the glass which are broken that will be repaired with or will be replaced with, you know, historic materials such. But in my opinion, it's still rebuilding windows because they are in bad shape. And I would, I mean, Mr. Dennis would probably agree that there's significant restoration that would need to happen for those five. And in my opinion, to do all of that work for those five windows and to cover those with storm windows will look almost silly, in my opinion, where the rest of the building doesn't have storm windows because they have newer windows on there that we've replaced everything else with because they're in such disrepair. Well, again, to address that issue, you can always use interior storm windows and not outer so it won't look silly on the outside. Fair point. It is. And actually, I think, you know, I would like to commend you for working with the staff, and I think we have, they have worked with you, and you have gotten three-quarters of what you want in terms of the replacement windows, given the fact that this is a very old building that's been left deteriorating for a number of years. But again, as we had discussed last time, the guidelines are pretty firm about this in terms of what should be, you know, you can always contest the staff determination by bringing pictures and showing how deteriorated they are and, you know, argue that Barry's lost his mind. But in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we have to accept the staff recommendation that these five windows can be retained. Would you like to see the pictures that I brought last time, several of which are indeed broken panes and I believe. Are they specifically relating to 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13? Yes, sir. Yes. On number 10, maybe we go. Let's see if we have them. I opened the door. You don't have them. Yeah, you did. That's okay. So I'm not certain of the exact numbers, but I'm almost positive, and Barry can probably confirm this, that the one in the middle is indeed one of the windows that was in question, if I can remember right. That's a broken pane right there. Okay. Go ahead. And I know it can be replaced, but it's not even rolled glass. And then the meeting rails need to be replaced on number 10, despite the fact that it is an original window. The meeting rails in the middle of the sashes have completely come apart and they are deteriorated, so that needs to be replaced. The other numbers, 11 and 13, they've been screwed shut and they're completely painted shut, so they're inoperable. Maybe there's a solution there. I would welcome all four of you to come take a look at these windows, and I think you will agree with me that they're certainly not in top shape. They're in bad shape. And I think what we're going to end up with is a window that's been essentially rebuilt out of new materials that is supposed to look like an old window, and I just don't. I hate that idea. So with all due respect, I disagree with your opinion that we should keep those five and cut off our noses and spite our face to have the rest of the building look good, in my opinion, and then have those look like old sloppy windows that we've tried our best to, even with interior or exterior storms, one way or the other, it's going to look strange and not comply with the rest of the building. I think preservationists' hair would stand up on their head if they heard what you said about, oh, it would be really bad to have some evidence of what it was historically. I can understand that. That overrides and it kind of puts the onus on you to find compatible new ones that don't, the ones that you're trying to replace. I understand. I understand there's two sides to every argument, and I understand the historic preservation, and like I've said, I can do only what I believe as a businessman, because this is more to just historic preservation than with this project. It has to be a successful project, and that's why I'm pushing for, I made the case last week or two weeks ago that the sound dampening, this is a very loud corner, and this was another thing that was discussed. I mean, there's a bus, and that's outside of one of the windows in question, and the buses are that close, and this is going to be an extended stay hotel, so essentially people are going to be sleeping there, and we're at 61 decibels up there. Seventy decibels is a vacuum cleaner, and that we can't have, and I know storm insulation will certainly improve that, but it will not eliminate that risk to me and my business, which will be people giving poor reviews because they couldn't sleep in a building because they kept a window for historic preservation. I'm doing everything I can as a businessman to comply with all the historic reservation that I can. I'm keeping all of the front porch, all the box gutters, doing the masonry work necessary to keep the masonry looking good, literally everything I can do, and I'm spending extra money to do that. The windows is one sticking point that I continue to bring up, and I understand, yes, there are other places with due respect in town where they can go look at old windows. I would prefer they not be those five in my building. Okay. All right. I want to address one other issue that we didn't really, or I didn't address. There is, I would like to add some wording to item three. This is the removal of the T111 covering. I would like for you to give, I would like to add in that you give the staff 48 hours notice of your removal so they can go inspect and check it out. Absolutely. Okay. Let's add that in then. Is that sufficient time, staff, 48 hours? Or two business days? I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you. Well, yeah, the sound system is horrible. Two business days to give you an opportunity to review the opening on item three? I would need to be there when they take the T111 off in case they need to close it back. What I'm trying to give is notice to you. Yes, two business days is more than enough. All right. Thank you. Okay. I'll add something to the conversation briefly. I am certainly in support of preservation, but I'm also very supportive of just principles of consistency. That's also at the foundation of why these neighborhoods are written with guidelines the way they are. So I'm not entirely against replacing these five as well. That's all I got. All right. So may I pipe in with a suggestion? Sure. The conversation, both from an energy point of view and from a noise point of view, is specifically an issue in sleeping areas. And in this instance, we have five windows, two of which are in a billiards room, which are going to be a very quiet room anyway. And we had also spoken last time about kind of the visual consistency of old windows and new windows. So my hope would be that the new windows are of such a profile that it's only discriminating eyes that are going to pick up the difference between the two. But I am particularly uncomfortable with replacing number one and number two that are on that kind of ground level. Because I think that kind of public street edge that people are walking by, people are going to actually identify those as historic windows. They are going to see it in a way that the upper floors are a little different. That's an option to consider. All right. Any questions or observations from the audience? If not, are we ready for a motion of some kind? I would like to move to reuse one and two and replace the others. Okay. Actually, I think what we need to do is let's have a conversation about that. Mr. Gilpin, can you make sure your microphone is on or speak closer to the microphone? We are having a hard time hearing you. A suggestion has been made, and it's not a motion yet, that we retain one and two, but 10, 11, 13 be replaced. Yes. I'll make it a more formal process in a moment, but I'm just trying to get a consensus. Is there agreement by the other board members with that? Yes. Okay. All right, then. Mr. Gilpin, what you need to do, then, is go ahead and read into the record for your motion and just add in that they can replace 10, 11, 13 in addition to all the other windows that have been listed. And by indication, one and two will be retained. If you want to make the motion. Yes, I'll do that. Okay. All right, then. We're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness on case number 02510402-B at 402 South Broadway with the following conditions. Number one, and these are revised. Number one, replace windows 10, 11, 13, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 with aluminum clad or wood windows. And that we retain two fully intact historic windows, windows number one and number two. And contact staff to review the condition of these historic windows once removed and determine frame reuse viability. Condition number two is to retain all usable brick mold for reuse. Condition number three is upon removal of the T-111 covering of openings along Maxwell Street, and staff shall review openings to determine if the door or window in style is required to be modified to match the historic configuration and to notify staff. What is it? Two business days. Two business days in advance. And condition number four, to provide door or windows details. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Provide door or window as required in place of filling historic opening. Condition number five, provide aluminum clad door and window manufacturers details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Number six, provide metal roof details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And conditions seven and eight are our standard conditions. Okay. Do I have a second? Any further discussion on the motion? I'll simply state that I'm the curmudgeon. I'm in favor of retaining all of the windows that should be retained as determined by the staff, but that's just my personal viewpoint with the guidelines. Are we ready for a motion? Are we ready for a motion? And I do want to note that it is deeply important that the staff review and are comfortable with the details and the specs that are submitted for those replacement windows. Of course. All right. All right. If there's no further discussion on the motion, I will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. I vote nay. Motion passes as conditioned. All right. Thank you. And by the way, I do appreciate your effort. I think you're going to have a wonderful building, and it's going to be a valuable addition to an area that I have been concerned about for quite some time. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. Turning now to 601 Boonesboro Avenue. This is the replaced historic wood trim. Is it pronounced Borel or Borel? Borel. How do you pronounce it? Borel. Borel. Okay. True exterior materials. Applicant is Kim McBride and James Griggs, who is well known to us. Come on up. The scope of work is I believe the staff has recommended disapproval of the application. I assume you won't be heard on that. Yes, sir. So let's have Ms. Armstrong do a presentation. I'm sorry. Let's go ahead and do your presentation. This discussion has been going on for a while, and I'm going to try to summarize the last couple of years, but also sort of introduce some of the topics that have been approved already for some of the Board members that have not heard this case as much. So this is the house as it sat for many years before Mr. Griggs and Ms. McBride purchased the property, and the porch was enclosed, as you can see here. So this is an important note because part of the approval that was received by this Board in 2017 was that all the porch details on itself were able to be sort of considered new construction, in which case those details of the porch will be in the Borel true exterior material. And in addition to this, the proposal has also included a rear dormer, which also is considered new construction, and that is part of the use of Borel. And then the other part is a rear addition also having the same treatment. So as we walk around the house, this is actually, of course, the front elevation. This is the driveway side. At the last meeting in September of 2018, when the applicant appeared, part of the motion was to be made that the horizontal members, which would be your facial and your soffit, would be able to be replaced with the Borel, but the gable, vertical gable ends, what we were supposed to do is those would still be wood. And so the applicant and I have met on site together to sort of review the condition once some of the deteriorated material is taken down. And so what I'm doing now is I'll suspend you through the windows because now we've come to the brick mold. Everything else has sort of been resolved except the brick mold. So that's the discussion as of today. But to sort of give you background, here are some details of the brick mold, and Mr. Griggs actually has some details of that brick mold as well that he will, and we brought some too from our meeting on August 6th that has that detail too. The windows were approved to be replaced. Those have actually been replaced. Sorry this window is so dark. So the proposal now is for Mr. Griggs would like to, he's asking to where he's taking down the brick mold and the brick mold is in great shape or in poor shape, he would like to determine that he would be able to use the Borel material as a replacement. He is actually, has kept quite a bit of the wood material, but we'll look at here in a second. But his request is to use that, the Borel material where he cannot use wood material. And I think previously what we've established, and as I've noted before, all the new elements of the house as far as the porch replacement, the dormer, the garage that I didn't mention, but the rear addition, all are new construction. And those elements were able to be used, the Borel, because that is new construction and that we wanted to limit the use of Borel or none at all for any of the existing repair of the house because it is considered the historic structure. And, of course, as I said before, this board did give them leeway to use the Borel on the horizontal members and not the vertical members, and then there's two gables that were done. So the biggest issue, and you can see this chart in your staff report, is the fact that this window, which is W1, and this window, which is W11, both had brick mold that was deemed not to be in great shape, and so part of his request would be to use the Borel on these particular windows. And I believe there was another one, I think, on this attic window, or this second story window. I'll get to that chart here in a second. And, of course, again, the porch is considered new construction. This particular window is on the porch. This is actually mentioned in the chart. And, of course, again, the porch is considered new construction. This particular window is on the porch. This is actually mentioned in the chart. And he has gone ahead because he did this while it was still enclosed and used the Borel on this window and also on this door, which is D1. Here is a sample of the Borel, and this is the original fabric. And this is hard to see. You might be able to see it better here. So these are the parts, the molding of the window. This is the good parts, and these are the parts that had more need of repair or replacement. You can see it again better here. He's removed all of them and salvaged all the parts he can. So, okay, again, here is his rendering of the house. And you can see there's – excuse me – this is W1, W2. These three elements here, which are on the porch, will have the Borel trim because they were sort of enclosed in that porch. And I believe the other one is W13, and Mr. Goose can talk to this a bit more. And, again, I want to point out that this is dormer of new construction and this as well. And here's the chart. So we looked at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 1, 2, and I believe 11 and 13. There's – that's sort of a summarization of the background. And included in this is sort of a summarization of the September 26, 2000 meeting last year of 2018 and the discussion that occurred. This also includes the July 17th meeting – July 14, 2017 meeting when he first asked for this replacement. And then, of course, the May 24, 2017, which we heard initially before the July meeting when the Borel true exterior representative, Andrew Mott, appeared. Then we also have the approval for the dormer and the sunroom, which was March 22, 2017, and then also the April 12, 2017 meeting. in 2017 discussion at the meeting, and then as a result of the July 14, 2017 meeting, you have the two documents that were requested by the board members, and I'll point those out, which is Attachment A, which is research about our synthetic material approvals, and then you have Attachment B, which also includes the Secretariat of Interior Standards, and then a discussion of what other communities of the Historic District have done, as well as a summary of the Shaker Town discussion that Mr. Mott from the Burrell to Exterior brought up as an example of being used. Course guidelines are included for your reference. Findings of proposal to complete and replace the existing historic wood brick mold trim of the historic structure is not appropriate and within the design guidelines. Guidelines regarding rehab and renovation of architectural details and features respectively state as noted in above 11A, B, C, and D, architectural details should be retained, maintained, and should not be removed or changed original to the building and should be repaired rather than replaced. This classic example of 1910's pyramidal brick roof cottage with projecting parlor bane hip roof dormer still retains substantial amount of its original wood mold, cornice fascia soffits that are relatively intact. While the house certainly has suffered from lack of maintenance, these character defining features of historic structure are significant and have largely survived despite the lack of maintenance. In accordance with the design guidelines, those significant features should be repaired in kind as required with wood. According to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines in Preserving, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, State Preservation is defined as the act in the process of applying measures necessary to abstain the existing form, integrity, and materials of historic property. It continues to state that the standards of historic preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric among the building's historic form. The Secretary of Interior's Statement for Treatment of Historic Properties was updated in 2017 and they were still adhered to retaining the existing historic fabric and repairs needed with the deteriorated wood with similar material and design. The statement mentioned above along with the LFUC design guidelines emphatically emphasizes the historic material is equally as important as the mass and the form of the structure and the replacement of historic fabric with inappropriate substitute material compromises the historic integrity and weakens the historic significance of the structure. Repairs should be compatible to the historic fabric of the structure and not be accomplished if they result in the loss and the damage of historic fabric. Staff finds the existing material would be retained and repaired in kind as needed but if not present, then if replaced, then the new wood is to match the historic fabric of the house and the district. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the replacement of brick mold of the historic structure with the true borel material and of course the applicant is present. Questions? Come on. You have a whole brand new audience. Well, and I brought two dozen slides to show you the history of this house so you're up to speed. And just the fact that we've been, we've received COAs to use borel on the front porch because it needed to be completely rebuilt. So I think the reason was new construction. The back dormer was allowed to use borel and hardy board because it's new construction. The rear addition is allowed to have borel and hardy board because it's new construction. Same with the garage. They allowed us to replace all the windows in the house because they were severely deteriorated. And that's going to end up being my argument at the end of this that the windows are severely deteriorated, as is the brick mold next to it, and it's all part of an assembly. And we'll get to that in a minute, but if you'll enjoy these few pictures, I think you'll be amazed at what we've accomplished, although it hasn't been in a quick time frame. And one quote from you, Chair Dickinson, that I remember is, and I agree with you, what we've done, you'd have to not be in your right mind. I don't recall quite saying it that way. Oh, that's almost a quote. So, would you turn the lights down just a little bit? How long have you been at this project now? We're, this is six years. We bought it in 2013 at an auction, a master commissioner auction. It was utilities cut off in the mid-90s and holes in the roof. It was a hoarder's house. So, this is what it looked like when we got it, and this is what it looked like after we cleaned the honeysuckle out from around the front. And you couldn't walk standing up in it. It had 10-foot ceilings, and this is the foyer, but we had to excavate through the foyer. We had to excavate through the front porch, and that was a half-bath on the far right, a bedroom in the middle, and the stairs going up on the left. And this is after that half-bath partition wall is removed and that foyer cleaned out. There were holes in the roof that you could put a dishwasher through, and it was like that for 10 years. The reason it was foreclosed on by the city is that the owners owed the city $23,000 in code enforcement fines, penalties, and interest, but there wasn't a mortgage on the house, and they weren't behind on their taxes. It really was just one woman who'd raised her children there. I don't know what happened to the husband, but she was a hoarder, and so you can't make sense of it. It's just a mental illness. This is just inside the front door after you've made it through the enclosed porch, and you can see the sag in the floor. There's a main beam that runs front to back, and it had rotted off the foundation wall, so the only reason that floor hadn't fallen into the basement is the gas pipe. Those joists were sitting on a gas pipe. This is another shot looking back at the front door. The ceilings, the floors in another room, the walls, it had holes in the roof for at least 10 years. There were no utilities for 25 years. It had a dirt basement floor that flooded every time the town branch water table came up, so it was wet for at least 100 years. The house had extensive rot, termite damage all the way to the attic, and you can see the sag on the hearth there. This is looking back up at one of the holes in the front and the deterioration of the brick and all the rafters and ceiling joists. That's brick repair on the other side of that wall at the front door. This is in the basement, and it had been converted to gas heat with radiators in the 30s, and the pipes going to the radiators had aerosol around them, which had all fallen onto this trash, so it was an asbestos hot zone. After we got it cleaned out, we just had the dirt floor and wet and those brick columns on stone foundations and all those other metal columns with 4x4s holding the floor joist up, and that's about maybe a 5'8 headroom. So my wife and I took out those brick columns and the stone foundations and then we dug a hole in the floor down deep enough that we could pour those footers and replace the columns and then dug a trench around the foundation so we could put a curb in to hold the dirt underneath the walls and formed it and filled it full of rebar and then poured that curb that you can see in the lower right-hand corner. That actually is a picture of the main beam that runs front to back. You can see it at the upper right-hand corner. I wish we could turn the lights down a little bit. That beam is... Okay, so you can see that that beam is just about gone. It's three 2x10s. So this is after I'd repaired that beam and now we're digging out the basement about 18 inches worth of dirt by hand in buckets on a cart to a daylight window and hefting them out. And Kim and I have done this work ourselves. I had a college guy help me there, but he quit. You know, he wasn't going to stick around for it. This is after we sprayed gravel and that's Howard Carter pouring the concrete floor, but now the water that rises up through that dirt floor and through some geotextile material migrates through the gravel to a distribution box that you'd find in a septic system, except it's going to that. I knocked a hole in the bottom of it and put a trap and a backwater preventer and routed it to the storm sewer. So all the gravel that comes up every time we have a big rain event makes its way to the storm sewer without getting the basement floor wet because it happens underneath the slab. Not that I want to rush you. Well, I just think this is important because what we're coming to is the deterioration of all of these aspects of the house and that being justification to use Burrell because it's new construction when you are taking a house. Well, and you know the other thing I wanted to show you is that we're concerned about the historic fabric. These are the hard pine floors that we're taking up before we replace the floor joists. I took those up, Kim helped, and then Kim is sawing them off and bundling them. That's salvaged first floor hard pine. And we did that because we cared about it. And then Kim finished the interior doors, like a 20-step process with shellac. And she redid the hardware. And she rebuilt the mortise locks. So this is the part of the historic fabric that we could save. And then we replaced all the floor joists in the house. And you had to align the top of the stone ledge to put in a pressure-treated plate and a band and then the height of a two-by-10 and then a subfloor and still come out with a new finished floor level with the stone sills at the entrances. So that's showing new joists, the ledge being repaired, and then the old joists in the bottom right-hand corner. And you had to do it one room at a time because if you took it all out, it would fall in. This is a laser line across the top of that ledge. And you can see that corner rock. And oh, my gosh, those foundation rocks are a hodgepodge until you get to the corners. And then they're laced like this, beautifully done. And I didn't want to lose that top corner rock, but it was three inches too tall to put in the new floor system. So on that laser line, I drilled five holes, I put those wedges in, and I popped the top of it off and then built above it. And that's historic fabric. It's not on the outside, but it's on the inside. And we saved it. This is the finished basement with new floor installed. Up above, this is the new first floor, and you can see the two-by-six joists that are actually the cornice. They go out over the two layers of brick wall. It's a brick structure. And we added two-by-eights on each one to stiffen it, and that made the attic a usable space. And this is a cross-section of the way the box gutter had been overshot with a piece of plywood, that two-by-six coming out through the house that's notched for the box gutter. Then they put a piece of plywood on top, and so you've got, like, this flip-out, like hair over your ears, and it makes a really bad detail when you get to a gable end. And so we decided to clean that up by cutting the box gutter off completely, sistering on a two-by-six where that notched one is, and then putting a flat cap on it out of Advantec, and then coming down on the 10-12 and covering that with copper and a drip edge. And we were given permission to use boral for the soffit and the fascia. So we ended up with a really nice detail. This is what it looked like on a gable end, and you just can't live with that. So what we ended up with, well, this is showing the rot as it goes out over the brick wall, and that was the justification for disassembling the entire cornice and rebuilding it, because it was like that all the way around where the box gutters had failed. And so this is the rebuilding of the entire cornice all the way around the house, and then putting a new boral fascia and a boral soffit on it. The soffit's not installed yet because I don't have the roof on yet, and I didn't want to lock that water in there while it's still not watertight. This is the old front return, the eyebrow return on the front gable, and this is what it looks like now. It doesn't have the soffit in place, but that's boral crown, boral fascia, and it will have a boral soffit on it. Those are two of the new windows, and you can see the brick mold is missing. And as Amelia was telling you, when we first got the house, and I was given permission to replace the windows because they were severely deteriorated, and we were ready to clean the brick, I didn't know. I wasn't supposed to take the brick mold off, and I didn't have any thoughts of putting it back. I was going to rebuild it. So there were four or five windows that I disassembled like that, and the brick mold's gone. And I would have taken it off the entire house, but the windows already had the plaster and lather removed, so they were loose. I realized I'd created a dangerous situation, so I stopped taking them off. But there's five windows that the brick mold's missing on. There's a lot of original brick mold that is unusable, and there's some that could be used. So I think we're about ready to... So those are two windows that I'd like to put boral brick mold on. This is the repair of those holes in the roof after we'd rebuilt the cornice. There's resheeting the whole house with 7-16ths, and then here's the synthetic underlayment and the ice and water guard on the eaves and up the valleys. This is supposed to have open valleys, and I did that cornice detail that I was describing to you in copper. So you'll never see it from the street. There's all that bling and expense, but it's put up there because it will permanently stop any problems on the cornice of this house. And that's one of my overriding objectives is to build this house back so it'll be there. Same objectives you all have is so that we've preserved these houses for 100 years. And that was so pretty, and nobody will ever see it again, that I turned 90 degrees and took the picture the other direction, too, just because I'm so proud of it. First time I've ever owned anything of copper. So here's the back addition, an old porch, and you might notice that there's arches over the windows. The brick mold's running up the side, and then there's a brick mold across the top, and there's an arch because in the front of the house, they used limestone lintels because you could see it from the street. As soon as you couldn't see it from the street, they switched to brick arches because it was cheaper. And so when we're talking about replacing the brick mold, on the back windows, there's also that arch that's part of it. And here's what it looks like now. That's all of that new addition is going to be covered in hardy and boral. That's the new rear dormer, and it will be trimmed in hardy and boral. And this is the new front porch, which the box beam and the rafter, soffit, and fascia will be allowed to be done in boral. All of this because it's classified as new construction because of superior deterioration. And my argument for being allowed to replace the brick mold with boral is because it's part of the window assembly. We reframed inside the house a 2-by-4 wall, and then when we got to the window openings, we allowed enough room so that we could extend a 2-by-8 out into the brick opening. Let me show you a detail of it. The outside of the house is at the bottom. On the left, you can see the two layers of brick. The second, the inside layer of brick, is recessed back because that's where the box was that held the weights that allowed the double hungs to be counterbalanced. Then on the top of the drawing on the left is the 2-by-4 wall that we've built, and attached to that 2-by-4 wall is a 2-by-6 wall that comes out into the opening and lets us move it back and forth so that we can get the exact distance we need for that window in the brick opening so that the glass is in the same position relative to the plane of the brick as the old windows were. It gave us a lot of flexibility on... These aren't sash kits. These aren't replacement windows. These are new construction windows. The pink lines are the nailing pins, so we're attaching them like new construction on that 2-by-6, or actually we used 2-by-8. And below, on the left, that nailing pin in the pink is a block of wood which allows us to come out flush with the frame of the window, and that's where we can attach the brick mold. The brick mold is in yellow. So the point is, these windows don't fit the brick openings like the old windows. So the brick mold is... It moves towards the brick or over the frame a little bit, and some of these brick openings are not plumb. So the old brick mold might or might not fit. Where it fits, I'd like to use it. Where it doesn't fit, I'd like to replace it. I don't want to have a half-inch caulk joint where I can mill this boral brick mold to fit properly. This is the inside framing I was trying to describe. We made the rough opening, the header, much larger than the brick opening so that we could add that last stud and then the wing wall of 2-by-8 to get the window exactly where we needed it and had control over left to right, top to bottom, and in and out. So this is one of the three openings that was enclosed by the porch which allowed us to experiment with the boral, and that's how it would look as a finished product. And when it's painted black, you can thump it like a melon. You can stand right up there a foot away from it. You would never know it's not wood. And the reason I'm saying it should be considered as new construction because it's part of this assembly, just the same as taking the cornice apart. It was considered new construction because we cut everything off and we came out with new framing and rebuilt it, just like the front porch, just like the back addition. This window assembly I think is new construction, and that to me is your opportunity to let us finish this house out with boral. So the justification would be that some of the brick mold is missing, some of it's unusable, and some of it won't fit properly. There is some of it that I could reuse if you insisted, but the parts of it that are not usable, I'd like to be able to use boral as the alternate material. And I brought some of this to show you because like the guys that had window problems, the pictures really didn't do it justice, so all I need is two more minutes, Chair Dickinson. I don't know how familiar you are with boral, but this is a piece that I built as the brick mold, and this is a piece that was built as crown. It comes in 1x4 to 1x12, it comes in 2x4 to 2x12, it comes in 5 quarter thickness. And the idea of using, here's a piece of the material that we were using as a patient, so there's one coat of paint on it. This is some of the original bed mold, and you can look at the grain on that. It's old growth southern pine, it's an extinct species. Here's what they're selling at Coggleton's, and it's expensive, and look at the growth rings on that, it's redwood. And the only other alternative is cedar, and it's finger joint. So I just don't want to put that on this house, and I'm not going to go to the third country, third world rainforest, and be part of that, cutting down those valuable trees. Look at the difference in the growth rings, Jim. And you know that's the sign of the strength and the weatherability of it. And the material that your barrel is made out of, what is it exactly? It's 70% fly ash, which is the product of coal combustion, and 30% polyurethane. And the characteristics of it are remarkable. It doesn't, it's, what is the word, when water doesn't go in it at all, it's impenetrable. Impermeable. Impermeable. Impermeable. And it has a coefficient of expansion that's minute. It doesn't expand and contract with temperature. So that's, between water being in the wood, and it breaking at the joints because of expansion, that's what causes your paint to fail. And this isn't going to do that. So, without getting on my knees, what I'm asking for is to let me finish my house with this, and it'll look great. All right. Any questions from the? Oh, one last thing. Are you sure? Yes, promise. Oh, that's right. Okay. I have to do it. Look at this. This is from where? This is one of the arches in the windows that you can't see from the street. These are, these are the pieces that I've got to replace. This is a piece of the original brick mold. And it's stapled. And look at the end. It's split. You know, it's just. Well, the issue is, of course, you can replace that. If it can't be replaced, it can be replaced with wood, as opposed to the synthetic material. I hear you. All right. All right. Any questions from the board members? Ms. Tate, anything? So, I guess I'm done. Yeah, you're done. I'm sorry. Thank you. Any questions? I have no questions, no. Okay. We've been through. Am I the only one that's been through the presentation? Sarah, were you involved? You were involved with that. We had this proposal more or less brought to us two years ago. And we had this conversation about whether there was enough flexibility in the guidelines to allow the use of this particular kind of material. As you also know, we went into a long presentation from Shaker Town where the material did not prove to be as, how should we put it? It apparently did not match up to how it was being advertised. Can I help you with that? Sure. Because I think that Sarah and Graham pretty much debunked that as installation error. And it was siding to begin with without a straight substrate behind it. And they were using nails right at the corner when they were forcing it to bend. There's some brittleness to it. Concrete will break if it's put in tension. But, Jim, here's my concern. My real concern is if we allow synthetic materials to start being used as a substitute for wood, where do we draw the line? Well, I don't mean to interrupt you, but this house has got it all over it. It has been accepted by this board. If you're looking for finding a fact that will not set a precedent, it's new construction. But this is not new construction. Well, it is part of that window assembly. I disagree with that. It's not a part of the assembly of the window. I mean, it's a good argument, but it's not. It just isn't. Well, then the argument could be that this boral shares more characteristics with the old hard pine than the new wood. And, although you said that better than I can, and it was Graham's idea, and it was Graham Pohl, because he said, regarding the in-kind or similar materials, he said, I don't believe the guidelines are clear on this. I don't think the current wood that is on the market is in-kind. It is not in-kind. It is not the same as historic wood. I think there are better products that can be used that will last longer, protect the structure more, and will actually serve preservation for a longer period of time. That's entirely consistent with the guidelines. It's just a different reading. And that's an argument that can be made to the Historic Preservation Commission for a change in the guidelines. And we went through, the staff went through an extensive study. The vast majority of the cities all still recommend wood-for-wood replacement. They have not bought yet into the notion that you're not undermining the historic integrity of the house by allowing a substitute material that's not wood to be used. Now, that's my interpretation. I know that Mr. Pohl was very sympathetic to you. It's a point, I'll admit. But we do let fiberglass columns go in, and we let hardy board go in, and we're not checking people's caulk or paint. There's no lead paint, but the new paint's not like the old paint, but we don't check to see how different it is. It might be plastic. I guess I'm a little off track, but there's all these materials, these modern materials that we're using throughout the house, and only a few of them are held to the same scrutiny as this one. And those were changes that the Historic Preservation Commission made. We can't make those changes on our own. That's my point. Well, I think if you considered it new construction, it would be easy and no damage done. I think you've heard the consensus here on that. All right. It's in your hands. Okay. I appreciate your passion. Truly, I do. And I'm just curious, how much have you spent on this house to date? How much have I spent? Mm-hmm. Well, six years of my lifetime. I know. I did say that that's priceless. Okay. But we've done most of the work ourselves, so the sweat equity is probably worth nothing. We were doing a good job. Oh, no, no. Don't know. Sweat equity is worth a whole, whole lot. I've done my share, too, in my day. And the real concern I have, and you're not hearing me, is that if we'd let the camel's nose into the tent here, I'm not sure where we can stop it. I know your argument is that this is new construction. It clearly is not. And that's the difficulty we have. You're the boss, but I do disagree. Oh, I wish I were the boss. Do I have a motion? Any further discussion? Okay. Everybody ready for a motion, then? The thing that's got me stymied is that you've gone so far with it, but I think you've done an incredible job. And I'm just trying to think of ways that it can be approved for several reasons. It's not a significant pass in terms of our historic buildings. They're all equal in terms of the guidelines and the processes, restrictions, slash directives. Okay. Let Ms. Tate finish her thought first, and then we can address it. And, Ms. Tate, would you lean more into the microphone so we can hear you? Okay. I think your first point was it's not necessarily historic. What other points do you have? Well, that's... I'm sorry. That was the point I was circling. Okay. And what I try to think of is the fact that they've done all the work themselves, and it is Crescent-like. If there would be anybody else that would come with a proposal to do the same thing, it's probably unlikely because there are not very many people who are equipped to do it. I just really hated that we're in this position because it... But what you've done is better than what was there before in terms of durability and good craftsmanship. I would be happy to use all the existing original brick mold that I can possibly use if where it's missing or unusable, you would let me use boral. And I will take every piece that's usable. If it's not usable for a long run, I can use it on a shorter window, and I will use it around the house, the original brick mold. Okay. The problem with that argument, and certainly that's appreciated, and don't get the impression I'm being dismissive of you at all. It's just I think we're caught into the guidelines is most of the time it says should. Occasionally it says shall, and in this particular case, the shall is absolutely emphatic about thou shall not use synthetic materials for the replacement of wood, period. I mean, that is just, and I know your argument about new construction, and you have been very adroit at making that argument with respect to various parts of your house. But in this particular case with this molding, it's my opinion that it is not new construction, and there's just no give in the regulation for this. Ms. Tate? It's difficult when you don't have the ability to allow new materials to be, to have a place in the construction of historic buildings. I mean, if this was George Washington's house, I wouldn't be saying this, but for a kind of working man's house in a neighborhood of Lexington, Kentucky, it is an issue. Now, I'm going to have to interrupt you. Ms. Tate, you know better. We have never evaluated an application on the so-called worthiness of the house. I mean, all houses, and in particular historic district, are given equal weight and are given equal consideration. Just because the house is not a pristine house and has been allowed to deteriorate, and Ms. Crouch, you have done a beautiful job bringing it back. You really have. I've been impressed. I occasionally run by and look at it. What would you suggest as a way that he don't have to? I don't think, to be honest with you, I don't think there is a suggestion here. I think he needs to buy high-quality wood, use all the wood he's got available to him so he can save the expense, but when you have to replace, replace with a high-quality wood and not use a synthetic material. That's my approach. As you well know, I like to try to find compromises, but in this particular case, the guideline is just too emphatically clear. Any further discussion on the motion? Or is there a motion yet? Well, I'm not quite through. All right. Keep going. If our guidelines were edited every five years so that we wouldn't be in this position, then it would be harder for me to say what I'm saying today, which is I'm saying it simply because you all have done a beautiful job, but it kind of takes you out of being historic. It's almost an example of futurist because you're using materials that weren't available until very recently. I think because of what our guidelines say we have to pay attention to, we do have to, but I would be really unhappy if having to do that, it would leave you in a position of what in the world are we going to do now? And I suppose you could just keep going to the next. What's the next? He can take this up on appeal if need be, if that's what you're trying to say. He has an opportunity to have our decision reviewed on appeal by the Planning Commission. Who would make that decision? Mr. Griggs, if we make the decision to go ahead and approve the disapproval of his application, he has the opportunity to take this to the Planning Commission. He can file that appeal within 30 days. I think Graham's on the Planning Commission now. I think there's the right answer here and there's the wrong answer, but I'm not going to appeal this. I'm just going to leave the house, but I'm really sad that you can't see, that you can't see what I'm saying about it being so similar to the cornice being rebuilt. The brick mold is attached to the spacer I built on the nailing fin on the framing that's all new, all the way back that's new. That's just one area of the house. What about the rest of it, the rest of your molding? The rest of the molding was all considered new construction. All of the other boral on the house, whether it's the cornice which is attached to the house, rebuilding that cornice, it was considered new construction. You folks were able to use that as a finding of fact to allow it. I think that you agree that boral is allowed on the garage. It's new construction. It's allowed on that rear addition because it's new construction. It's allowed on that rear dormer because it was completely replaced. They used that same argument on the cornice all the way around the house because it was cut off and totally rebuilt. It was new construction. We've done that. It's covered with boral. It's not a bad precedent because it's the old allowable new construction reason. The front porch is the same thing. It was completely torn off and rebuilt. It's new construction. I promise you, I'm totally honest with you when I'm saying that that brick mold is part of the window assembly that starts inside the house and comes out with new construction all the way, and it's the only thing it's attached to. So I'm compelled to agree with the Secretary of the Interior's recommendations on repairing in kind, and I am not of the opinion that it's part of the assembly as you've described. I think it's trim. And on top of that, trim work takes a lot of skill, but to brick mold a window is one of the less intensive tasks in that guy's court. So on this particular case, I'm greatly admirable of your guys' effort and passion for this, and I think it would be great if the Secretary of the Interior were to visit your house and make a new recommendation. But where I'm sitting, I'm going to follow their recommendation. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion or on the topic? Staff does need to make a clarification for the record at some point. Okay. Tied to the guidelines and when they get updated and so forth, there was a very intensive study carried out by the staff on this very topic, expressly tied to your project on Boonesboro back, I don't know, 2017. Thank you. And, in fact, it set out an attachment A to the packet. Right. And so this is not a matter of nobody has revisited this relative to the design guidelines and this process. We revisited it quite fully and researched across the country, and we went to some sites, including Shaker Town, met with the Kentucky Heritage Council staff on the Shaker Town project. They were using that as a test case. At the end of the day, it failed the test case, and they have prohibited it for other projects. This has not been taken lightly at all, and it has taken lots and lots and lots of hours of very dedicated research, because it's very important that the process be open to using things that truly can be done successfully as materials change and so forth within the philosophies of the Secretary's interior standards. This is not a situation where that is the case. It has been demonstrated to not be the case by all of these other things of study, and I think it is totally consistent with our design guidelines for this to be denied. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? The Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number – I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Regarding case number 02140601G at 601 Boonesboro Avenue, I move to disapprove the application. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Zero. Are you opposing the motion? You're abstaining, okay. Ms. Tate has abstained. The motion passes and the application is disapproved. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. All right. We have a couple of other items, and I have now lost the schedule for the next set of meetings. Conceptual review. Is there a copy of the schedule? We've got a conceptual review for 431 West 2nd Street. Is there a conceptual review? Yes. I missed that. All right. Is the applicant for the conceptual review present? I'm sorry. I missed this somehow. All right. Come on up. I'm sorry we took so long. Mr. Chair, may I ask – I was talking to our attorney. Did you make a motion to postpone your item number six? No, I did not. So let's have a motion to postpone item 6207 South Limestone to November 11, 2019. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The case is postponed until November 11. Thank you. All right. Let's now talk about the 431 West 2nd Street. Okay. State your name for the record, please. Hi. I'm Meredith Guy. I'm the architect on this project. Okay. Have at it. Okay. Basically, I think this is a conceptual review for the addition on the rear of the project. We have to add an exit egress there to the fourth floor down to provide proper egress for the apartments in the Hagerman building. We also need to add an elevator to make the units accessible. So the addition would be the exit stair and the elevator and, obviously, the connection to the building. I think one of the things that I would Okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. Apparently, I have lost my mind. Okay. Mary, if you'll come up, we need to have a presentation by the staff first before so we can get oriented. I apologize. That's okay. I have it now. I don't know. It's been a week. I apologize. You've got this, though. Yeah, I do. Okay. I do. It's right there. Okay. She did a very good introduction. So I will just pick up where she left off. This is 431 West 2nd Street, the Hagerman building. The building was constructed as a dormitory for the Campbell Hagerman School for Women and is currently known as the Hagerman building. The addition occurs at and encloses a recess in the brick historic structure that currently contains a later fire escape. This is the west side. Obviously, the front. This would be the east side and working around towards the rear. This is the location for the new tower, the recess that I mentioned in the fire escape. And you can also see two dormers up on the roof separated by a chimney. And that actual detail, if you'll notice, occurs on all four sides of the building. And I'm talking about the chimneys between the gable dormers. Here's more of a close-up. So again, this is the location for the tower. As you can see here, this is the tower. The structure is open on the northwest corner, which is this location. It has a combination of cementitious panels and CMU. The tower is approximately 20 feet by 27 feet, including the ramp and the landing. You can see the landings here, and then the ramp is on the west side. I said in the report that it's three stories. I stand corrected. It's actually four. I didn't take into account the portion within the roof. The building has a combination of different slope direction shed roofs with a shed penthouse dormer. And all roofs are proposed to be covered with composite shingles. These didn't come out exceptionally well. But this is the penthouse on the tower, and then a connector over to the new shed dormer, which you can kind of see on the dormer. The proposed new dormer would have casement windows. The guidelines are included for your use. And since this is a conceptual review, the staff does not have any findings, but there are a few items that we think the board should consider. Is it appropriate to construct the proposed vertical circulation tower at the rear of the structure? Is it appropriate to fully enclose the rear recess with the proposed vertical circulation tower? Is the design of the tower compatible with the historic structure? Would it better meet the guidelines to have a glass connector between the historic structure and the addition, meaning approximately in this area so that the historic structure's corners into that recess would still be readable in the future? Are the proposed materials compatible with the historic structure? Is it appropriate to remove the two dormers from the roof? Is it appropriate to construct the proposed shed dormer on the roof? Would it be more appropriate to retain the gable dormers and fill in between the dormers with an additional shed so that the gable dormers would still read? And again, this is a conceptual review, so the staff has no recommendations at this time. And I'll let Ms. Guy take you through the drawings and answer your questions. Okay, Ms. Gunn. You're up. I think, I guess first of all, thank you for your time. I know it's late. No, actually, we've been running very late, too. Okay. We thank you for your time. I apologize that the drawings, I have a set here. I don't know if it's more clear. I've got some markings on it. Oh, you've got a set. Okay. So you can see what it looks like. The shed dormer on the fourth floor exterior is also not our first choice of the way to enter from the egress there onto the fourth floor. We had a challenge there that there's a load-bearing wall that goes right down the middle of the building. It's about 13 inches thick. So when we, however we join from this new egress there into the fourth floor, we have to go on the right side or the left side. If we go on one side or the other, the way that the dormers are now, we're going to run right into one of the dormers. So I think we definitely are open to your recommendations on the best way to handle that and keep the historic building intact as far as the dormers go. But I don't, obviously we don't just want a connector that just cuts off the side of the dormer. So our original plan was to build a shed dormer across the back so that we had a clean connection. But, you know, I'm open. If you want to look at the roof plan, you can see, I think, this might be more clear. We've got the existing dormers dashed in there. And you can see where the connector comes in. It's on, it's in between basically that chimney and that existing dormer. Well, the chimney is where that load-bearing wall ends. So we're trying to come in in between there. But if we don't do something with the dormers, we're literally just going to go into the side of that dormer. As far as adding glass in the connector, I think it would be lovely. I mean, more than anything, I think that's a budget issue. And you know whether or not it fits in the budget, but we're open to your suggestions on that as well. I think we're still looking through the documents. Anybody eager? Buildings with mansard roofs seem to be some of the most challenging ones to add to. Because the impression of the building is one story shorter than it actually is. So that's certainly the challenge in this one as well. And then you've got overruns for your elevators that you've got to... And obviously the penthouse for the elevator was a challenge too, but the height is due to the elevator. It's not just the height that we thought would look good there. We'd prefer it to be lower. So the height is the first thing that sticks out. And the second thing that sticks out would be the forms you're using for the roof, just relative to the rest of the building. The single slope? Yeah. Okay. That's kind of the alternating single slope. If you could find a form or a mass that would relate to how the other portions... Well, if you look at even the front ports, it's kind of just a flat roof that sticks out and sits on columns. You look at the back two additions, they're kind of flat roof. Okay. And there's kind of a pattern of sorts. Well, yeah, a pattern of the way they extend the building further in these smaller masses. So those are the thoughts that I've had looking at this so far. I think one of the challenges from us as the architects working on it is we... You were under the understanding that we needed to make the addition look like an addition and not try to make it blend in with the building. But if you... I mean, I think just having flat roofs would be great. Well, you are correct. Okay. So that's where we kind of were like... Yeah. We don't want it to blend in with the older building. Okay. But as you study... To the point that it isn't noticeably a new construction. But it can blend in. From a form standpoint. Okay. Okay. But the relationships of the forms and the masses and their scales to one another is something that we always look forward to seeing done in relationship. Okay. The materiality, the details, and sort of the distances between those forms. That's kind of like the glass connector comment is sort of speaking to that as well. Those are things we're always happy to see. Now, as far as the height, I don't... I mean, we can look at the roof form and all. I don't know if we can do much about the height. Just because, like I said, the elevator, that's the pulley system. Is there... This would... Oh, go ahead. If I could just interject a little bit. I'm Stephanie Gilbert. I'm also one of the architects. So as you were saying in the whole project, the sort of roof tie-in is probably the most challenging design piece. So we not only have a mansard roof, as you indicated, we also have a very shallow structure above that. So in terms of the elevator, you probably also know that the safety in the way elevators are constructed now, that you have to have enough height above the top cab position that a workman or a person that potentially was on the top of the cab would not be crushed. So there's the minimum requirement in addition to the beam and the other construction required. So where we have two conflicting heights, I think what Meredith was saying, the ability to fully resolve that to where even as a flat roof, it will be higher than the mansard. So this is probably a long shot, but is there any... Could there be any opportunity to have the units that are on three and four become double height? Not open, but one and two levels of mezzanine. That would be a significant... He would lose four of his... I think there's 22 units, so it would go from a 22-unit building to an 18-unit building. Okay. Would you speak into your microphone? Oh, I'm sorry. I said that would be quite a significant change. Pull it down to you. You can pull it down. That would be quite a significant change just from an investment standpoint with the plans. Derek is actually the developer. He's sitting right here. The plans that he has for the building as far as the renovation, I think he's really anticipating 22 units versus you'd have at that point, you'd have 16. I think the other thing that happens when you do that is that you're also tying up square footage for him in terms of looking at his ROI. His square footage on having to have stairs, internal stairs now on every single one of those units as a two-story unit on the top. Okay. I think the other issue is just the convenience of moving furniture into that fourth level is that the elevator really makes that workable for furniture movement. So we know we have these challenges. I guess that's why we wanted to do a kind of concept review. And I assumed it would be a long shot to take that route. So I think the other thing I wanted to point out, I think that was brought up in the staff comments, was the location. You know, we really worked on, you know, how this thing really ties and keys into the rest of the building with, you know, the complexity of the mansard. In addition to in the rear, you have the two wings that are a lower level height. So tying into the middle, what you end up doing is preserving what is now where the stair is, the exterior exit stair currently, is preserved as the lobby. So that is maintained as the elevator lobby, and that goes up through all those levels. We have the irregularity on the fourth level still. Anything else? I think the other thing that we are also struggling to do is there are existing trees on the site. So we're trying to keep this as compact as possible. Otherwise, we will lose two or potentially three mature trees on the back of the property. So we're really trying to compact it to preserve not just the building but the grounds as well. Let me point out to you that the necessity of your construction and the presence of those trees will have to be addressed. Because if they're historic trees, and I assume they are, there are restrictions on their removal. If they're greater than ten inches in diameter at about a four foot from grade, then they would come under the review process. Essentially, the process is charged with keeping trees short of ones that are unhealthy, demonstrated to be. So for new construction proposals and so forth, a healthy tree is a pretty protected thing. I think that the owner is definitely preserving those trees is part of the nature of the site and marketing and preserving the beauty of the space. So I think that we were given that direction as well. So I think that is a desire for the property. That's what I figured. I just want to make sure that point had been addressed. Ms. Hill, do you have any comments? I do. I rather like the location. I think it both puts it off the street, clearly doesn't interfere with primary elevation. It also kind of respects the kind of interior layout of the building. The notion of whether it's pulled back just a little for some kind of glass or whether it's actually just a recessed reveal, but something that prevents it from looking like it's just smacking into the building. Sorry, that's what we have currently. It's pulled off one foot, zero. And thinking of a reveal as a tie-in detail was kind of the approach right now. It's still early. But yeah, I guess that's where our drawings had developed a little bit beyond what these had been printed. But that was the direction we were kind of headed in, not as glass, but as a solid reveal. But something that steps in so that it clearly separates the new construction. The other thing is that the materials clearly define it as 21st century. And so for me, the only part of the form that I've struggled with are the roof lines. And I do understand the elevator issue, but the kind of drama of the two slope roofs do seem, even though they're pretty interesting within themselves as an addition to that building, draw attention to themselves in the way that seemed kind of at odds with the original building. Just making them within the confines of the elevator height that you're needing to address, getting something just really simple and clean in the way that the rest of the building is, seems like to me would be much more respectful of the original historic building. So as far as the hardy reveal, the pattern? Mm-hmm. Okay. Because the reason we went with that pattern was basically just due to the scale. Yeah. So we were trying to do a bigger scale, but you're saying more of the ladder? No, no, no. I like the scale of it. Oh, okay. I was really talking about the drama on the roof. Okay. I'm sorry. Dealing with the roof lines once again. No, I like the scale of the material. Okay. The roof line does tend to detach it from that historic building in a way that the rest of the volume doesn't. So I think that is your greatest challenge. Once you've gotten the reveal of where the new building is, you can see that kind of shadow line where the new building is versus the historic. I think the roof lines are the biggest challenge. I think the rest of it is quite nice. Okay. I agree that that would be an improvement. I don't think we were exactly clear on how different we need to make it look, so I think a flat roof would be great. I love the suggestion to try to match the front porch as far as that kind of addition out flat. I mean, I think it's a great idea. And I think the other thing with the two roof heights, I think that that may still be important in that it may be that the elevator pops up more dormer-like. Maybe that's the way we need to think about it because I think you've got to try to break those volumes down a little bit. With just the way the stepping is of the three-story wings, then we have the upper fourth floor and the manor. You've got a lot of these layers, and to have something that's just kind of a sheer cliff uninterrupted also felt a little wrong. I wouldn't disagree with that. It's all in how it's done, but I would agree with you. That's right. So I think that's a great suggestion. Now, I guess the last question, and like I said, I know everybody's late. The dormer, the shed dormer, I mean, do you all have any other better suggestions on how to handle that? Because we're open. I have a couple questions, actually. Okay. It starts with questions about the elevator. The elevator door seems to open. It's going to open on the inside. It will open inside. It will open inside, yes. That was one of the things that we changed, and it's not on here. We did that in your section, but it wasn't there in the plan. Okay. Yeah. It's actually not noted on here to change. It will be changed. Well, that changes where I was going to go with this. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Jim. I think it was mentioned that perhaps you could consider filling in between the two dormers. Would that? That's, I mean, if we fill in. Is that? I think it's a good suggestion. It's just that however we, the connector is, it's not going to be symmetrical because of that low bearing wall. Right. So if we leave the dormer intact and don't rebuild it at all, the connector's going to literally die into it. Okay. And it's going to be cut off. So I just, if that's the direction we need to go to preserve the history, that's okay. I just want to make sure that everybody's okay with that. Well, you know, every effort should be made to preserve the dormers, but they are on the rear of the building, which gives us a little bit more flexibility. Not a whole lot, but some. Ms. Kerr, do you have any ideas on that? Well, I think the idea of essentially putting a link between the two existing dormers to result in a larger dormer is good. The way it would prevent an activity of progress in the sector. Obviously, it would be most successful if the infill link steps back. Right. But it would be a useful thing. Okay. It's a sloping point. Right. Yep. Okay. I think the effort here was to make the connector as narrow as possible, so that it created a shadow line from the volume that becomes the elevator and the stair is pretty much a volume that extrudes vertically, but the actual connector becomes narrower so that it does become as small as possible, I guess. Well, and we're talking about adding some glass. No, it's really impossible. Sorry. It's been a long day, Chris. They're all staying, but that one. Two foot ten between the edge of the dormer and the edge of the masonry on each side. That's where the pattern is that goes around. So there's no way to really, you know, flip it in there, thread the needle, so to speak. And that was our first attempt was to do that. And then if we go fully into one dormer, you lose an entire unit because it no longer has an exterior window. And so now, you know, we would have to rebuild a window to be able to run a unit. It's a complicated little spot in trying to really, you know, the beauty of this building, you know, this old college dormitory is just fantastic. And what is also equally amazing is all these years that it's been neglected, the shape that it really is in. So it's in good shape. You know, the walls, the floors, everything is unlike the gentleman that we saw earlier. It's nothing like that. And we've all seen, you know, bird infested and horrible water. You know, we're not inheriting that kind of thing. We're trying to be as subtle as possible. But definitely open for you to take questions on that. But to their point, the roofs aren't subtle, so if we make them more subtle. True. I think it's just that, you know, do we dive into the side of that dormer and just say the dormer's historic? We're just going to hit the side of it? Or do we try to rebuild that dormer? I see both sides, so I guess any feedback you all have would be great. The other option would be literally build another dormer, but just, you know, make a new dormer just over away from the tie-in. So we can make two to scooch them to the edge. Yeah, we can, you know, build new dormers that look like the existing dormers. That might not work. This is why we're here. You need to slide in on one side of the chimney, right? Because the chimney's lined up with the bearing wall, right? Yes. And could you demolish one dormer, enter the building, and then rebuild that area as needed to connect? One side. Leave one side intact and rebuild the other. Is that where you were going with it a minute ago? Maybe that's an option. Well, that won't look good, though. But I just don't know how good it will look. I mean, I think we need to do, like Barry suggested, and fill in the two dormers and leave them intact. Yeah. And know that we're going to ñ I mean, it's four stories in the air. You're not going to really be able to stand there and look at, you know, I don't know if John Wilkerson will be able to see that corner. He might, where it cuts off. Well, unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether you can see it or not. I know, but I'm just saying, you know, I don't know what the best approach is. I do want to try to wrap this up. Okay. Ms. Tate, do you have any ñ I don't think you've had an opportunity to talk yet. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? No, I've listened. Okay. I know this building well. It was my first degree from UK. It was my first apartment. Oh, my gosh. I was on the first floor. Awesome. Okay, Ms. Hill? Yeah. So the two drawings that kind of show me where your energies and efforts are going to need to be is on A1.5, and it's that connection from the dormers to the elevator. That just seems like there may be a way to clean that up just a little bit, and it shows up again on A3 in the Section 1, the partial building section. And I think that it will, as you flatten those roofs down, as you kind of step them down, I think that's all going to come together pretty nicely. But you can really see in that partial building section, when you look at the historic building and that new slope piece and that new pop-up piece and then the elevator shaft, I mean, there's a fair amount going on that would suggest there's a next step that will just get things a little cleaner and more simplified. Yeah. That's all I got. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Well, do we have questions, too? No, I was going to make a question. I think that would be an excellent. Go right ahead. While you're thinking, real quick, Barry, you may know the answer to this. How tall does that chimney rise above the – is exposed above the roof line, the existing chimney? Not very far, and it's not a monumental chimney. It's not as wide. So it's like a utility flue furnace type. Okay. Yes. Well, that kind of helps, actually. Go ahead. I wanted to show you on the roof plan what my thought was. I feel strongly that – or the staff feels strongly that there needs to be a separation there. We need to be able to see that there was this recess in the building. And I think that the – well, I'm showing you in the wrong place. I'm sorry. So I think this – there needs to be some type of way to read what was there. I think the building – the tower could be pulled back slightly to allow that to happen. And maybe it's not even glass. Maybe it's another material. Did you leave it open? I'm thinking of – what is it? Can't think of the name of it now. But – and then what I was thinking, again, as Ms. Kerr said, which was our thinking, is you could do a shed roof between those two dormers and move the connector to the center and then do a gable over that connector that would tie back. So then it would become an overbuild on that shed. I think the issue, then, is when you run into that wall. I don't know the details, but – If you go in the center, we're going to run right into that 13-inch low-grade wall. And that is – And that wall is running perpendicular. It runs right this way. Oh, it's centered in this. Okay. That's why we're on one side or the other. Okay. All right, that idea just went down. Well, I think it still could be massaged. It could be big enough to – it could be double-wide, maybe. Does that work? The corridor? Not the corridor, but just the gable that you're talking about. Yeah, it could be. I guess whichever side we go, as long as everybody's okay with the fact that we're cutting off the side of the dormer a little bit visually. Oh, okay. No matter how we give enough width to get around that wall, we're cutting off the side of the dormer. Yeah. Honestly, I think this dormer issue is one that we see often and that we can – I'm not too worried about the dormer thing. Okay. I hope not. Okay, anything else? The last question I had was, could you leave this connector open? If you push the whole tower forth two feet, could you leave it open? Just not enclosed? You could say no. Well, I think that the owner – I mean, he was just asking me this very question. I mean, right now, that lobby is a conditioned space. So, you know, the idea initially wasn't that you would get in an elevator and then go outside to go back in again, which is what I'm understanding you're suggesting. Okay. But that might be not – I mean, I'm not telling you that. Well, you've got to talk about that later, but once you get up to the top, there would be an option to cover and roof that connection to the building, but the sides could be open. And it's detached. And that further – well, you know where I'm going with that. It's getting late. I think if you do that – I mean, one is that the floor of the connector is lower than the roof of the wings. So now you're kind of in a valley. And my concern would be maintaining both from a drainage and from a snow removal and that kind of stuff. So as an architect, I would recommend to the owner to put glass up there before I would recommend that being open. I think it would be subject to long-term exposure and damage. So I would not really think that's the best option. But I know we're all kind of grasping to try to find a solution because it doesn't really present something obvious as architects of really how to skin this cat. So we're appealing to you all's experience as well. So I appreciate that. All right. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? All right. I think we're done. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Peter. Okay. We have one last item to consider. We have the next year's schedule. Do I have a motion to approve it? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Chair calls question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. We have an agenda for next year. I don't believe there are any other items on our agenda. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Well, let's say it all together. We are adjourned. Thank you so much. Hello! Help me! Please help me! Please! Can you hear me? Oh, God! Help! Help me, please! Thank you so much. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.